The failure of American style Libertarianism. - General

What I fail to see is how rightist libertarians hate the imposition of coercive, arbitrary force via the government, but are totally willing to accept the imposition of coercive, arbitrary force via capitalism. People fail to see that capitalism is, by definition, the distribution of resources by capitalists. This isn't "free", this sets up an upper class that more often than not abuses their power just like any other system of arbitrary power. Libertarianism means the freedom of the individual from all forms of oppression, not trading one oppressor for another.

[QUOTE=Megafan;38538838]Advocating more attempts to try and fix a problem through some kind of governmental force is more unrealistic than leaving your country devoid of that attempt (and actively working to get rid of current regulations) at all?[/QUOTE] thinking that giving a group of individuals (the government, state, whatever) unlimited amount of money as well as the power to use those for anything they desire and assuming that these people will work in your interest and not their own self interest is not realistic. Libertarianism does not equate that problems won't be fixed, it's just that the government has no right to do so and generally does it inefficiently and in the wrong way [editline]21st November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38538538]People didn't leave farms by their own free will, many of them were forcibly evicted when land enclosures were undertaken, joining up smaller farms into larger ones. In that case, for the first few decades, people starved, turned to crime, worked for a pittance in factories, pretty much anything to get by. My ideal system is one based on utilitarianism, with scientific methodology being used extensively to make that possible. Whenever an ideology would be found to contradict scientific knowledge (as Libertarianism does), then out the window into the dustbin of history it goes. [editline]21st November 2012[/editline] Conditions did empirically improve though. Countries with public healthcare, safety regulations, free educations, etc all have higher standards of living. Those only existed for the middle classes. What about the poor? Yes but that's a single government in the history of millions. What about the British Labour government of 1945 to 1951?[/QUOTE] conditions for the poor and everybody in the western world did "empirically improve" without the government spending other peoples money form the 19th century up until maybe the first or second world war i think poor people were accepted into friendly societies as well, so that they were given a chance to get employed and then they could pay the monthly fees back afterwards, but i am not sure. it certainly could work. i am not saying that greece is a lone example...most governments in this world are highly corrupt, inefficient, expensive and parasitic. thats what you get when you give a small group of people so much power. what about the british labor party? I am not british so I have no clue

[QUOTE=Kentz;38540437]conditions for the poor and everybody in the western world did "empirically improve" without the government spending other peoples money form the 19th century up until maybe the first or second world war[/QUOTE] It started to improve after wide ranging social reforms were brought in place. People voted, and laws were passed, and their lives improved. The British introduced public schooling in the 1870s, and basic welfare systems in the early 1900s. Up until those had been introduced, people had poor health, and recruits for the army to fight in the Boer war were too short to join due to poor health. [QUOTE=Kentz;38540437]i think poor people were accepted into friendly societies as well, so that they were given a chance to get employed and then they could pay the monthly fees back afterwards, but i am not sure. it certainly could work.[/QUOTE] Does it work in practice though? [QUOTE=Kentz;38540437]i am not saying that greece is a lone example...most governments in this world are highly corrupt, inefficient, expensive and parasitic. thats what you get when you give a small group of people so much power.[/QUOTE] Do you understand politics besides having skimmed over it? Politics isn't as clearcut and black/white as that. [QUOTE=Kentz;38540437]what about the british labor party? I am not british so I have no clue[/QUOTE] They introduced the National Health Service, the best healthcare service in the world.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38538538] My ideal system is one based on utilitarianism, with scientific methodology being used extensively to make that possible. [B]Whenever an ideology would be found to contradict scientific knowledge (as Libertarianism does), then out the window into the dustbin of history it goes.[/B] [/QUOTE] That sounds more authoritarian than utilitarian to me, what would your ideal system do about religion? Also, how exactly does Libertarianism go against scientific knowledge?

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38541445]Also, how exactly does Libertarianism go against scientific knowledge?[/QUOTE] It assumes all humans are inherently rational and working towards their own best interest.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38541524]It assumes all humans are inherently rational and working towards their own best interest.[/QUOTE] And I would say the the majority of people are rational and are working in their own best interest (most of the time). Plus you say that as if working in your own best interest is all you should be doing. Moreover, how does your suggested authoritarian system solve such a problem?

I don't think you have to accept the claim that even a majority of people are rational and self-interested if you can defend the claim that if it isn't the case, you're even worse off by letting another person/group of people's irrationality dictate your choice of action to you. [editline]21st November 2012[/editline] Like, if everyone's inherently flawed and prone to making wrong value judgements, that's even more of a reason to not let any number of people have a semblance of power over your action.

Sobotnik I know how important science is to you but you have never addressed the limitations of science and the scientific method. Asserting that our society should be based off some scientific utilitarian ideal is completely baseless. Ethics and science can not be reconciled. Our "scientific method" is so bunk that I utterly reject any claims that it could be beneficial to political structure. Science doesn't favor utilitarianism over meritocracy, or totalitarianism over liberty. To even introduce these questions we must first define proper societal values and presuppositions, material that cannot illuminated by science alone.

[QUOTE=Strider*;38543092]Sobotnik I know how important science is to you but you have never addressed the limitations of science and the scientific method.[/QUOTE] What limitations are there? You can use it to conclusively [b]prove[/b] something wrong, which is almost as good as conclusively proving something right. [QUOTE=Strider*;38543092]Asserting that our society should be based off some scientific utilitarian ideal is completely baseless. Ethics and science can not be reconciled. Our "scientific method" is so bunk that I utterly reject any claims that it could be beneficial to political structure.[/QUOTE] How does this work? If you can use scientific methodology to find out new knowledge, you can use it to work out if policy A works, and is preferable to policy B. If Libertarianism worked, scientific methodology would back it up. However (like pretty much every ideology), they always turn out dodgy in the end, despite sounding wonderful on paper. [QUOTE=Strider*;38543092]Science doesn't favor utilitarianism over meritocracy, or totalitarianism over liberty. To even introduce these questions we must first define proper societal values and presuppositions, material that cannot illuminated by science alone.[/QUOTE] Why can't science do that?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38543275]What limitations are there? You can use it to conclusively [b]prove[/b] something wrong, which is almost as good as conclusively proving something right.[/quote] For starters, the problem of unlimited hypotheses. [quote]How does this work? If you can use scientific methodology to find out new knowledge, you can use it to work out if policy A works, and is preferable to policy B.[/quote] If this were the case socialists would have conceded long ago to the well supported idea that unencumbered markets run economies most effectively and efficiently. [quote]Libertarianism worked, scientific methodology would back it up. However (like pretty much every ideology), they always turn out dodgy in the end, despite sounding wonderful on paper.[/quote] [quote]You can use it to conclusively [b]prove[/b] something wrong[/quote] Can you show me science that conclusively [b]proves[/b] Libertarianism wrong? [quote]Why can't science do that?[/QUOTE] Because science doesn't determine our values, it's for that reason that philosophy is still of a field of preeminent importance. [editline]21st November 2012[/editline] Values values values That's an aspect of this debate you are failing to address

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38543275] How does this work? If you can use scientific methodology to find out new knowledge, you can use it to work out if policy A works, and is preferable to policy B. [/quote] The scientific method would be a horrible way make policy. I mean maybe if you are trying to create a society that focuses on nothing but scientific and technological advancement then it might work. The scientific method is great for gaining scientific knowledge, but it is pretty shitty at factoring in human emotion and ethics. [quote] Why can't science do that?[/QUOTE] Because science usually comes to the most efficient and logical solution, which often ISNT the best solution for making policy or a political structure, unless (like I said before) you want a society of robots dedicated to nothing but scientific advancement.

[QUOTE=Strider*;38543346]For starters, the problem of unlimited hypotheses.[/quote] that's why we have occamian priors [editline]21st November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Timebomb575;38543486]Because science usually comes to the most efficient and logical solution, which often ISNT the best solution for making policy or a political structure, unless (like I said before) you want a society of robots dedicated to nothing but scientific advancement.[/QUOTE] wrong [url]http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Strider*;38543346]If this were the case socialists would have conceded long ago to the well supported idea that unencumbered markets run economies most effectively and efficiently.[/QUOTE] Well yeah they should have if that was the case, but people adhere to their ideologies rather strongly. Socialists and Libertarians are both guilty of this. [QUOTE=Strider*;38543346]Can you show me science that conclusively [b]proves[/b] Libertarianism wrong?[/QUOTE] You can't prove it wrong because it isn't falsifiable. You can say "I want a society that has minimal coercion" and that can't be proved wrong. [QUOTE=Strider*;38543346]Because science doesn't determine our values, it's for that reason that philosophy is still of a field of preeminent importance.[/QUOTE] Scientific methodology can be used to work out the best way to make society more utilitarian, what would prevent it from figuring that out? [editline]21st November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Timebomb575;38543486]The scientific method would be a horrible way make policy. I mean maybe if you are trying to create a society that focuses on nothing but scientific and technological advancement then it might work. The scientific method is great for gaining scientific knowledge, but it is pretty shitty at factoring in human emotion and ethics.[/QUOTE] No it isn't. We had the cognitive revolution about 50 years ago. We can study human behaviour very well these days. [QUOTE=Timebomb575;38543486]Because science usually comes to the most efficient and logical solution, which often ISNT the best solution for making policy or a political structure[/QUOTE] I'm seeing a contradiction here.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38543526] Scientific methodology can be used to work out the best way to make society more utilitarian, what would prevent it from figuring that out?[/QUOTE] Nothing substantial that I can think of, you aren't wrong here at all. However, you're making a value judgment that utilitarianism is preferable to other ethical systems. My point is that you cannot use science to justify Utilitarianism as easily as you can to facilitate it. [editline]21st November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38543496]that's why we have occamian priors[/QUOTE] This is a good point. Would you consider Occams Razor an axiom itself, though? Irrelevant question to the debate really, but I am curious. [editline]21st November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38543526] You can't prove it wrong because it isn't falsifiable. You can say "I want a society that has minimal coercion" and that can't be proved wrong.[/QUOTE] That's no different than Utilitarianism, though.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38543526] I'm seeing a contradiction here.[/QUOTE] Efficiency and logic arent always the best way to make a policy, because freedom often goes against efficiency and emotion often goes against logic. In a system based solely on efficiency and logic, things would get done, but people wouldn't be happy.

[QUOTE=Strider*;38543590]Nothing substantial that I can think of, you aren't wrong here at all. However, you're making a value judgment that utilitarianism is preferable to other ethical systems. My point is that you cannot use science to justify Utilitarianism as easily as you can to facilitate it.[/QUOTE] Yes, but it can be used to bring about such a society. [editline]21st November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Timebomb575;38543675]In a system based solely on efficiency and logic, things would get done, but people wouldn't be happy.[/QUOTE] The point of utilitarianism would be to make people happy. The use of science helps in that.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38543783] The point of utilitarianism would be to make people happy. The use of science helps in that.[/QUOTE] It can help inform some ideas, but ultimately happiness is a subjective experience. Unless you know how to quantify happiness then science cannot yet define how to best achieve happiness.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38543783] The point of utilitarianism would be to make people happy. The use of science helps in that.[/QUOTE] Science is really good at objectivity, whereas what makes people happy is very subjective, as yawmwen said.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38544067]Science is really good at objectivity, whereas what makes people happy is very subjective, as yawmwen said.[/QUOTE] Which is why you introduce policies aimed at improving things such as healthcare and education. These can be quantifiable.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38544091]Which is why you introduce policies aimed at improving things such as healthcare and education. These can be quantifiable.[/QUOTE] Introducing those policies always comes at a cost. Some people value freedom of choice and liberty over overall societal happiness. What would you say to these people, and how can you prove your way is right using "science".

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38544091]Which is why you introduce policies aimed at improving things such as healthcare and education. These can be quantifiable.[/QUOTE] Being healthy and well educated just happen to be things that can be quantified, there are many things that the government deals with that arent. Plus healthcare and education arent always objective. Some people chose to be unhealthy by smoking and drinking because they enjoy those things, and some people would prefer not to be educated but would rather pursue a career in sports or what have you.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38544067]Science is really good at objectivity, whereas what makes people happy is very subjective, as yawmwen said.[/QUOTE] [url=http://lesswrong.com/lw/bq0/be_happier/]no[/url] [quote]Aaker, J. L., Rudd, M., & Mogilner, C. (2010). If Money Doesn’t Make You Happy, Consider Time. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2011. Ahuvia, A. C. (2002). Individualism/collectivism and cultures of happiness: A theoretical conjecture on the relationship between consumption, culture and subjective well-being at the national level. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 23–36. Springer. Aknin, L. B., Dunn, E. W., & Norton, M. I. (2011a). Happiness Runs in a Circular Motion: Evidence for a Positive Feedback Loop between Prosocial Spending and Happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(2), 347–355. doi:10.1007/s10902-011-9267-5 Aknin, L. B., Sandstrom, G. M., Dunn, E. W., & Norton, M. I. (2011b). It's the Recipient That Counts: Spending Money on Strong Social Ties Leads to Greater Happiness than Spending on Weak Social Ties. (M. Perc, Ed.)PLoS ONE, 6(2), e17018. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017018 Aknin, L. B., Barrington-Leigh, C. P., Dunn, E. W., Helliwell, J. F., Biswas-Diener, R., Kemeza, I., Nyende, P., et al. (2010). Prosocial spending and well-being: cross-cultural evidence for a psychological universal. National Bureau of Economic Research. Block, J., & Koellinger, P. (2009). I Can't Get No Satisfaction—Necessity Entrepreneurship and Procedural Utility. Kyklos, 62(2), 191–209. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6435.2009.00431.x Chancellor, J., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2011). Happiness and thrift: When (spending) less is (hedonically) more. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(2), 131. DeVoe, S. E., & House, J. (2012). Time, money, and happiness: How does putting a price on time affect our ability to smell the roses? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(2), 466–474. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.11.012 Diener, E., Oishi, S., Lucas, R.E. (2009). Subjective Well-Being: The science of happiness and life satisfaction. Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology, 187-194. Diener, E., & Seligman, M. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13(1), 81–84. Diener, E., & Seligman, M. P. (2004). Beyond money. Psychological science in the public interest, 5(1), 1–31. Drnovšek, M., Örtqvist, D., & Wincent, J. (2010). The effectiveness of coping strategies used by entrepreneurs and their impact on personal well-being and venture performance. Journal of Economics and Business, 28, 193–220. Dunn, E. W., Aknin, L. B., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Spending Money on Others Promotes Happiness. Science, 319(5870), 1687–1688. doi:10.1126/science.1150952 Dunn, E. W., Ashton-James, C. E., Hanson, M. D., & Aknin, L. B. (2010). On the Costs of Self-interested Economic Behavior: How Does Stinginess Get Under the Skin? Journal of Health Psychology, 15(4), 627–633. doi:10.1177/1359105309356366 Dunn, E. W., Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2011). If money doesn“t make you happy, then you probably aren't spending it right. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(2), 115. Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2008). The dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network. BMJ: British medical journal, 337, a2338. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). The economics of happiness. World Economics, 3(1), 1–17. Graham, C., Eggers, A., & Sukhtankar, S. (2004). Does happiness pay?: An exploration based on panel data from Russia. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 55(3), 319–342. Elsevier. Howell, R. T., Pchelin, P., & Iyer, R. (2012). The preference for experiences over possessions: Measurement and construct validation of the Experiential Buying Tendency Scale. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(1), 57–71. Hudders, L., & Pandelaere, M. (2011). The Silver Lining of Materialism: The Impact of Luxury Consumption on Subjective Well-Being. Journal of Happiness Studies. doi:10.1007/s10902-011-9271-9 Kahneman, D. (2006). Would You Be Happier If You Were Richer? A Focusing Illusion. Science, 312(5782), 1908–1910. doi:10.1126/science.1129688 Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(38), 16489–16493. doi:10.1073/pnas.1011492107 Kasser, T., & Ahuvia, A. (2002). Materialistic values and well-being in business students. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(1), 137–146. doi:10.1002/ejsp.85 Lyubomirsky, S., Dickerhoof, R., Boehm, J. K., & Sheldon, K. M. (2011). Becoming happier takes both a will and a proper way: An experimental longitudinal intervention to boost well-being. Emotion, 11(2), 391. Mogilner, C. (2010). The Pursuit of Happiness: Time, Money, and Social Connection. Psychological Science, 21(9), 1348–1354. doi:10.1177/0956797610380696 Nickerson, C., Schwarz, N., Diener, E., & Kahneman, D. (2003). Zeroing in on the Dark Side of the American Dream A Closer Look at the Negative Consequences of the Goal for Financial Success. Psychological Science, 14(6), 531–536. Nicolao, L., Irwin, J., & Goodman, J. (2009). Happiness for Sale: Do Experiential Purchases Make Consumers Happier than Material Purchases? Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2), 188–198. doi:10.1086/597049 Otake, K., Shimai, S., Tanaka-Matsumi, J., Otsui, K., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). Happy People Become Happier through Kindness: A Counting Kindnesses Intervention. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(3), 361–375. doi:10.1007/s10902-005-3650-z Philippe, F. L., Vallerand, R. J., & Lavigne, G. L. (2009). Passion does make a difference in people's lives: A look at well-being in passionate and non-passionate individuals. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 1(1), 3–22. Quoidbach, J., Dunn, E. W., Petrides, K. V, & Mikolajczak, M. (2010). Money Giveth, Money Taketh Away. Psychological Science, 21(6), 759. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166. Sheldon, K. M., Lyubomirsky, S. (2012).The Challenge of Staying Happier: Testing the Hedonic Adaptation Prevention Model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. doi:10.1177/0146167212436400 Stutzer, A., & Frey, B. S. (2010). Recent advances in the economics of individual subjective well-being. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 77(2), 679–714. Thomas, R. L. (2010). Mediating and moderating variables between discretionary purchases and happiness. UNLV Theses/Dissertations/Professional Papers/Capstones. Paper 889.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Strider*;38544171]Introducing those policies always comes at a cost.[/QUOTE] The benefit of introducing them outweighs the costs.

[QUOTE=Strider*;38543590]This is a good point. Would you consider Occams Razor an axiom itself, though? Irrelevant question to the debate really, but I am curious.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure. I can justify using Occamian priors because we live in a low-entropy universe, but then I know that I live in a low-entropy universe because of my observations, which depends on Occam's Razor itself, so it is rather circular. I don't know why we live in a universe where Occam's Razor works, and I'd love to actually find an answer, but at the moment I'm content to just throw my hands up and admit that that's where my model of the world hits a brick wall and explodes. Calling it an "axiom" doesn't actually offer any additional explanatory power, it's basically just a fancy way of admitting you don't know and hoping no one calls you out on it.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38544291]The benefit of introducing them outweighs the costs.[/QUOTE] This depends ultimately on values, why do you keep evading this?

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38544265][url=http://lesswrong.com/lw/bq0/be_happier/]no[/url][/QUOTE] So science can be used to determine what makes certain people happy in certain situations, cool. If they went out and grabbed a different sample of people, they could get an entirely different set of results, because what makes individual people happy is subjective.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38544343]If they went out and grabbed a different sample of people, they could get an entirely different set of results, because what makes individual people happy is subjective.[/QUOTE] How do you know this? The burden of proof is on you. As far as I'm concerned the science is settled, at least with regard to the specific topics examined in those sources.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38544368]How do you know this? The burden of proof is on you. As far as I'm concerned the science is settled, at least with regard to the specific topics examined in those sources.[/QUOTE] Its hardly settled, the article even mentions that its not comprehensive. Its not meant to apply to everyone since different things make different people happy. You cant possibly make up a list of things that make everyone happy.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38544470]Its hardly settled, the article even mentions that its not comprehensive. Its not meant to apply to everyone since different things make different people happy. You cant possibly make up a list of things that make everyone happy.[/QUOTE] We can make a list of those different things. It's a function of how much funding goes into the experiment.

[QUOTE=Strider*;38544331]This depends ultimately on values, why do you keep evading this?[/QUOTE] Not really. If it can be shown that say for example the use of state firefighting forces is shown to be more superior to privatised firefighters, then implementing it will clearly be more beneficial. Countries with public services (like healthcare, firefighters and police) tend to do better than those with privatized systems.